DONALD NIXON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the petition for a belated appeal because the commissioner found disputed facts regarding whether the defendant requested an appeal.
Donald Nixon petitioned for a belated appeal, claiming he asked his trial counsel to file one, but counsel denied this. A commissioner was appointed d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Donald Nixon filed a petition seeking a belated appeal, alleging under oath that he had requested his trial counsel to pursue a direct appeal but no appeal was filed. The State contacted trial counsel, who stated that Nixon did not ask him to file an appeal. Since there were “disputed facts”, this court appointed a commissioner to hold a hearing and resolve the facts.
According to the commissioner’s report and recommendation, Nixon testified at the hearing that he never requested that his counsel file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Accordingly, the commissioner recommended that the instant petition for belated appeal be denied.
Based upon the commissioner’s recommendation, we deny Nixon’s petition for belated appeal. In light of the assertion made by Nixon in his petition, under penalty of perjury, that he had requested his trial counsel to pursue an appeal, we direct that a certified copy of this opinion be forwarded to the appropriate institution, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes (2004), which subjects a prisoner to disciplinary procedures if he knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth brings false information or evidence before the court. See Miller v. State, 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
PETITION DENIED.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Svoboda v. State, 932 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…The court shall issue a written finding and direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the department as provided in s. 944.09. See also Nixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Miller v. State, 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Wilson v. [*547] State, 916 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cole v. State, 913 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Vale…
-
Rivera v. State, 943 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…llegations petitioners have to make are very minimal. Petitioners should not be allowed to cavalierly lie to this court-” Svoboda v. State, 932 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). We have not suffered dishonesty lightly in the past, Nixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Miller v. State, 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and we will not relax our intolerance now. PETITION DENIED. GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ„ concur.…
-
Plucinik v. State, 97 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…CA 2006) (holding petitioner’s false statement, made under oath at commissioner’s hearing on petition for belated appeal, warranted denial of his request for belated appeal and the additional sanction of DOC disciplinary procedures); Nixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (directing, in light of petitioner’s false statement made under penalty of perjury, that a certified copy of the opinion be forwarded to the appropriate institution for appropriate disciplinary procedures); Miller v. State,…
Authorities Cited
- SITE2SHOP.COM v. MTM Trading (PTY) Ltd., 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Miller v. State, 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)